They're left in the candidate pool? So what? How does that impact you? How does it impact them? Do you think they're waiting around for your company? They're not. They're moving on to other positions at other companies. Are the diversity candidates you're hiring unqualified for the positions they've been hired into or are they simply less qualified? If they're qualified then why does it matter? Less qualified candidates get hired over more qualified candidates every day, for reasons completely unrelated to diversity issues. How is this any different? How is this a diversity issue?

"They're moving on to other positions at other companies." Assuming similar companies don't have similar "no white guys" policies.

@joeqwerty Sounds like they're hiring based off skin color and sexual orientation instead of merit. That's usually illegal.

It's important to realise that, by recruiting systematically the most qualified candidate for a position, you are working in the exclusive interest of the employer. The interest of the candidates is that you find positions to people that have trouble finding any, for whatever reason that might be, any discriminatory considerations left aside.

@ArthurHavlicek this is not always true. Hiring the most qualified candidate can result in him doing lots of important work and then after a while he will probably leave because he needs more stimulating tasks and then maybe there is no one left in company who can maintain his work.

@hk88 can you indicate if you've experienced specific cases in which a more qualified candidate was passed on in favor of a less qualified one?

Guys, it really isn't that difficult. Making a team more diverse is a quality. Hiring somebody because they are white - no. Hiring a white guy because a homogenous team of Hispanics needs a broader perspective - yes. That's a tangible, no-BS benefit for the company. Same if a company of exclusively rich white people hires a white guy from the ghetto. Oh, and don't get me wrong, this is frequently misunderstood by the simpler minds on both sides of the argument.

This is often discussed and I'd call it "reverse racism". The only equality is to hire whoever capable and competent. You should disregard people's races, but NOT actively pursuing any.

"I can't deny that I feel morally icky about leaving a qualified candidate in the candidacy pool because of what essentially comes down to their gender and skin color. " - with every job opening where more than one or two candidates apply, there are always qualified candidates who aren't selected. That fact has nothing to do with gender or skin color.

You may think these people stay in your candidate pool, but since you are not the only company in the world, they will find jobs elsewhere. Your loss.

@JoeStrazzere From Harvard to High paying jobs, it's a fact that Asians and Caucasians have higher hurdles and requirements to pass and get an offer.

@Jack I mean, no. That isn't a “fact” at all.

I find it funny to finally be of the "wrong race". But, I think OP is hating her job right now, and it will only get worse. Going against this societal tide might cost her job and not going will impact her sanity. I'd advise her to take some space and enjoy this "white is the new black" time that we live.

If "diverse" candidates belong to groups that are discriminated against more often, then they those are candidates that are more competent and hard-working than their resume shows. If you want to hire the fastest runner and two guys have both run a 7-minute-mile but one had to do it with his legs tied together, which one would you hire?

@R.Schmitz: Why would the quality of a team improve because people have different skin colors or origins? The quality of a team depends on the individual members and how they work together, not their “diversity”.

This is obviously discrimination and is illegal, so you should probably stop doing it.

If your company has an ethics & compliance hotline, you can make an anonymous report. Many companies are beginning to adopt a structure where they have a CECO (Chief Ethics & Compliance Officer) who should be able to address some of your concerns. If not, you'll need to find an ally in the executive leadership team in order to effect real change.

@Michael In some cases it could prevent some obvious mistakes, like if you build sensors that trigger soap dispensers and you test them on yourself. Or you're doing face recognition algorithms. There seem to be some stories for both where they are "racist" as in working better on white people. At least to some degree that seems an oversight in testing (as for face recognition I've seen an article claiming that software developed in non-western places does not have (as strong as) a bias. This is limited of course, though you might not consciously know beforehand.

@R.Schmitz Ideally, yes. But that's not how it's done in OPs companies and in real world companies - they would just bundle the white guy from the ghetto together with other rich white guys, and possibly refuse a job offer due to diversity requirements.

@Michael Other than that it can have two main advantages: 1) You do it for a general society goal, so the benefit of equal participation and prospects etc is supported. This may not give you direct business benefit but can be an overall good to aim for. 2) It gives you PR ammunition to paint your company as moral and good and progressive etc. This could also help with internal team moral, depending on how it's played and what stance your workers have on the issue. The problem with this is that this is hardly ever really explicitly thought over and communicated at every level(-> cargo culture)

@KonradRudolph We could argue about the jobs part of the statement (though this post is an anecdote of exactly that), but we absolutely do have evidence that non-legacy whites and Asians have a far harder time getting into Harvard than other minorities.

@Michael btw. those are just arguments for doing it, to inform. I'm not saying that those are always supporting the concrete measures implemented or that they are totally sound to apply in all cases or come without any other problems. Just to give some insight into the benefit that people can actually see. (There might also be more, and there might be counter-arguments why the measures are wrong to reach the goals or the goals the wrong ones etc. pp.).

There's absolutely no evidence that having a team of diverse skin colors (and let's be honest, that's what people mean when they talk about a diverse team) brings any tangible benefits to it. It's all hand-wavey, wish-washy stuff about "different background or experiences", with no proof that actually improves the quality or output of the team as a whole.

Dummy question to clarify: Are you asked to not even send them white-male candidates or is it "just" that you observe the white guys going back to the pool even though they seem qualified enough until a non-white guy is screened by them?

@Michael "Why would the quality of a team improve because people have different [...] origins?" - Knowledge is power, for example. It falls under the "how they work together" in your second sentence.

@Michael I've been told many times that more diverse companies tend to be more successful and innovative. I can't vouch for how true it is, but it makes sense that a variety of perspectives could help a team be more innovative. It's also better for morale, if you do hire only a couple of minorites because they're really standout, they might not stay if they're the only ones.

@ConcernedCitizen I don't 100% understand what you mean exactly, but I agree that in reality it often goes wrong: On one side, it's "only choosing women is sexist" for testers for a tampon company, on the other side it's "just get a mix of skin tones" for programmers writing accounting software. There's also a difference between a local sewage treatment company in an all-white village vs. Google, Apple etc, which are global players - and yes, in reality, the sewage treatment company is usually not the one trying to become more diverse. But like I said, simpler minds on both sides.

@R.Schmitz whether that is a (business) quality is highly debatable and likely very dependent on the type of job and team in place. I do agree there are cases where diversity can help, but that's not a thing for just any team and there are also cases where it can rather bring down productivity. I'm less certain for overall social benefits. Sure people who are in contact with minorities seem to be less racist in their views, but unclear whether correlation or causation to me,and even if causation does that also hold when the team setup feels forced s.t. it could lead to increased prejudices? hm

Lmao all these "oh noooo white men are being discriminated against!" comments are exactly what should be expected from a network that is 90% white and 70% male.

@AzorAhai--hehim Funny enough you hear the "oh nooo X people of minority background are being discriminated against!" comments here too, when it matches...

@FrankHopkins I actually don't find it debatable at all - diversity is, by itself, not a business quality; it's not a bonus for every business. It can be. It can also be not important or even relevant at all for a business. However, in this case here, we're talking about "one of the largest organizational consulting firms in the US".

@R.Schmitz AND? same thing applies: they may have some roles/teams where diversity in itself is a business benefit, like for customer acquisition or the like, but surely won't benefit in every team from it. I don't see an indication from the question that this is intelligently aimed for, like "oh we need more hispanics because we want to expand to Mexico or the like", "more females because we want to have more to do with female cloth brands", it's just diversity for its own sake and in that form it's unlikely that there is a direct business benefit in all the cases it is applied.

@FrankHopkins Yeah, because that's a real thing, lol.

@AzorAhai--hehim ah a cynic. yeah it is a real thing. But feel free to imply people can only look out for their own race.

@FrankHopkins Ah, perfect, a word-twister! That's not at all what I'm implying, but obviously, there are people in the comments doing exactly that.

@AzorAhai--hehim ah so you're saying pointing at discrimination of your own group is a bad thing? if you didn't want to somehow imply that it's somehow wrong to complain about discrimination against white males or that they wouldn't point out discrimination against other people ("real thing, lol") your initial comment says nothing and is pretty pointless. (rather than a non-constructive gibe I guess, so not much lost). Btw. OP who started the discussion with a strong feeling that this is wrong is neither male nor caucasian white. anyway, have a nice day.

@Kat the companies that were diverse and successful I've seen so far, got there because it was natural to them. I.e. they just took the best candidates available without a forced filter. So in my perspective this is more correlation than causation (obviously in some cases causation can come into play, when diversity directly can help, e.g. in the marketing department if you want to target everyone).

@FrankHopkins Nothing in the question said the applicants chosen were not qualified. It only says white men are being left in the applicant pool. Perhaps they weren't as qualified as the people selected? Odd that everyone assumed that they were more qualified.

@AzorAhai--hehim I don't assume they are more qualified, but I assume they were not even looked at because they were not of minority status ("remain in the pool"), thus the qualification level was not even established before deciding against them (except on a very rough 'it's also a manager' kind of level perhaps), but I've asked a clarification question on that above.

@FrankHopkins "AND?" - please, no reason to become aggressive. I'll elaborate: It's "intelligently aimed" at providing services in the USA, which has a lot of minorities. The devil is in the details. As an example; while kicking off a new project and giving it a name, it just takes one Mexican on the team to remark "That's a slang word for 'penis' in Spanish" to save you from becoming the laughing stock for 11.3% of the population.

@R.Schmitz and how often do you have the potential in an arbitrary consulting firm to determine the wording of outwards communication? I get that there are cases where it can help, but there are enough cases where it has no effect. So I stick with my general point that it's not a business benefit in itself - and we agree on it in principle from your earlier comment. whether it has benefit in the cases we see here has to be gauged from the outside, and for me there is no indication that this is the driving factor, especially since we see this increase right now with the respective pol climate.

@R.Schmitz could it be that just right now they start seeing benefits everywhere? sure could be, but imho unlikely that this is driving this. Even when there are benefits, there can also be costs etc. (and this is just about whether there are benefits, not whether the way to achieve diversity is the right one, which I would also deny given the information we have so far)

New contributor and this is their first question, very controversial topic, makes sure to point out that they're a minority themselves - this question smells like someone trying to make some sort of point. Either trolling or some sort of culture war thing.

@FrankHopkins I am well aware that this one specific example does not apply to all situations. It's just an example, after all. The point is, A) there are thousands of little pieces of knowledge like this which together comprise the experience of belonging to [X] culture and B) the benefits are already usually not obvious - if you have only one perspective to look at them, the might be all but invisible.

There seems to be an assumption in many of these answers and comments that the OP's company is choosing less qualified or unqualified candidates in order to avoid hiring white males. Where in the question does it say that unqualified or less-qualified candidates were being hired? I suggest trying to gather more information and context.

@JoeSmentz That's not impossible, but it's also not unusual for someone to make a new account here because they ran into an issue at work and ended up here.

@R.Schmitz "Hiring somebody because they are white - no. Hiring a white guy because a homogenous team of Hispanics needs a broader perspective - yes." Do you even realize that you said the same thing twice? You're assuming that "a broader perspective" (!) is inherently tied to a person's skin color. That is racism.

@Brandon I've pointed that out before, but at least I don't assume either side is more qualified, but the way I read the question, the white guys aren't even considered by the hiring managers, so they have no way knowing whether they are better or worse qualified. Again, I tried to get clarification on that above.

@user76284 Please, no strawmen. I did not say the same thing twice. Please don't tell me what I'm assuming either - I never said (or assumed, for that matter) that a person of a certain skin colour has a broader perspective, please read again carefully. I agree that attributing a broader perspective to a race is racist.

@R.Schmitz That's exactly what you did.

@hk88 You're missing two rather important pieces of information here: Are the candidates who are being hired under-qualified, and are they from groups that are minorities within the company? If the first one is a yes and the second is a no, then this discrimination and is illegal in most parts of the developed world. If the first is no and the second is yes, this is proper affirmative action. The other cases (both no or both yes) are not as clear cut.

@user76284 I am sorry you feel that way, but ultimately your perceptions are your perceptions. I can accept your faulty perception of me. Have a nice day.

@R.Schmitz My perception isn't faulty. Yours is. I suggest you go back and read your own comment. If you didn't mean what you said, I suggest you delete it and write a new one.

@user76284 I took your suggestion of reading it again - after all, to err is human. I'm afraid I wrote exactly what I meant and I can not agree with your assessment. "Hiring a white guy because a homogenous[sic.] team of Hispanics needs a broader perspective". A team, which was previously comprised of perspectives routed in only one culture group, can widen its horizon by adding a perspective from a different culture. They didn't have that perspective before, now they are adding it. There's some overlap, but not nearly as much as with previous hires. The teams perspective is now "broader".

@JoeStrazzere "... That fact has nothing to do with gender or skin color" - Hmm that seems like a weird thing to say considering you just quoted OP saying that candidates are being declined just because of gender or skin color. Are you disputing OP's statement there?

@user76284 Now, if somebody reads "Hire a white guy to make the perspective broader", and their first (and only) reaction is "that's because white guys have bigger perspectives!", then the fault isn't with me. I'm sorry they feel that way, but their perceptions are their perceptions.

@R.Schmitz Your comment: "Hiring a white guy because a homogenous team of Hispanics needs a broader perspective - yes."

I hope my answer/post being deleted shows quite clearly what is the climate these days.

@ConcernedCitizen Not really. Stack Exchange hides deleted posts so they can't. Besides, your post never happened and we were always at war with Eastasia.

Just to emphasize a point in several of the above comments: Don't hire or refuse to hire anyone solely because they are a minority or women etc. Diverse is not simply defined as either being a racial minority or women, but if diverse experiences (see my answer below for examples) , simply happen to lean toward these populations, its not the OP fault and I don't see a problem at all here

@Anthony I still find it weird how so many of you read the question as the departments just by chance ending up with minority hires after having evaluated all candidates. The more I read it, the more the question seems to imply they specifically ask for minority candidates excluding white males from the beginning. So this would be exactly a case that you'd consider discriminatory.

@Anthony It's just not that the whole company works like this, just more and more of its departments. And with respect to outside evaluation they can hide nicely behind that candidate pool that still keeps all the white guys around. Also because otherwise this is pretty much a non-issue I wouldn't think OP who is generally supportive of minorities would feel itchy about it.

What state are you in?

@Frank , If that is the intent, then yes, it is discriminatory, and the OP rightfully feels uncomfortable as she is being asked to participate in something illegal

@R.Schmitz The idea that hiring a particular race, religion, or gender provides a benefit is usually not a moral justification for discrimination. For example, you might have prejudiced customers who would prefer you had a white salesperson. It might significantly boost your business for you to have a white salesperson to deal with your prejudiced customers who would prefer to talk to someone white. I don't think that justifies trying to hire someone white. Do you? Should a car dealer try to hire more men if data shows their customers trust men more and are more willing to spend?

@JoeSmentz Yes, it's most likely a troll.

@njzk2 I edited my question to make some things very clear and answer some comments. These policies have resulted in cases where we've hired less experienced (but still qualified) candidates to support diversity endeavors. I should have made this clearer - this is what I take issue with.

@FrankHopkins I'll just give you the scenario - I send resumes over to hiring managers that I've screened and ranked based on qualifications alone. It got to the point where I'm asked now to not include them in those groups I send over unless they've been requested specifically by the hiring manager. This is why I have issue with it and feel I'm in a place of responsibility or even liability, because I'm actively doing the filtering

@RaphaelSchmitz I should have clarified, I'm hiring specifically for a pharmaceutical company. Technical roles, lab techs, test technicians, leads, etc. I'm trying to determine whether there would be a need for something like you're mentioning, but I don't think it applies here

@JackRyan Honestly I'm trying to feel better about what I do, as I don't have means to up and leave especially with everything going on right now. I've wanted to ask this question for 6+ months but didn't have the "safe place" to do it until I found this website the other day. I can't very well do this on LinkedIn or Facebook. The relative anonymity behind it was the whole reason I felt I could post this.

@Acccumulation I'd rather not say as that narrows down the options for my employer significantly. I wanted to be someone anonymous with this question, but it got a little more attention that I had hoped for

@ConcernedCitizen I still have the original page open and haven't refreshed, so I see your answer.. To answer the quote, I'm not there and doubt I will anytime soon be in a position to burn my life down. The links you provided gave me a lot of insight I hadn't found previously. Idk what good it'll do me, but my dad suggested I have a paper trail of everything that's going on. If it comes to be that I'm let go for bringing this up, at least I'll be in a position to decide how to move forward.

@hk88 Please update the question with the detail that you are to filter them out before sending your qualification based ranking to the hiring managers. This is crucial. A lot of the answers and commenters seem to argue based on the assumption that you just observe the white guys not being chosen and being put back by the hiring managers after being equally considered.